Decision details

On 1st March 2022 the Department for Health & Social Care (DHSC) published details of the ADULT SOCIAL CARE OMICRON SUPPORT FUND.  This was the final specific ASC Covid funding stream.

Surrey County Council (SCC) has received £1m of Omicron Support Fund monies.  Funding was provided so that “Local authorities have discretion to use the funding as needed locally, to support the adult social care sector, including relevant local authority staff, in its COVID-19 response, and in particular increased challenges posed by the Omicron variant”.

The funding was unringfenced and did not have to be spent within a set period.  When the funding was received, the Council was paying out the final allocations of the Infection Control and Testing Fund 3 and Recruitment & Retention Fund round 2 funding streams to ASC providers.  It was agreed therefore that Omicron Support Fund monies would be retained on the balance sheet so they could be utilised to support ASC providers in the early part of the 2022/23 financial year.

As with all previous Covid grant funding streams, the Council consulted with the Surrey Care Association to seek views on the best way to dispense the limited grant funds across Surrey’s broad ASC provider base.  Following this consultation the Adults Leadership Team determined that given this funding stream is unringfenced it would be most appropriate to invite all ASC providers to bid for funds against a set of criteria.  Providers were invited to submit applications for a funding allocation towards:

•The cost of staff sickness in April 2022.

•Hardship payments to pass onto staff members who have suffered loss of earnings due to sickness and/or the need to self-isolate.

•The cost of facilitating safe visiting in April 2022, with the option to submit a claim for the period May-June 2022 as well if funds could accommodate.

•Other cost pressures caused by the pandemic in April 2022, with the option to submit a claim for the period May-June 2022 as well if funds could accommodate.

Due to the limited value of grant funds, a decision was taken to prioritise funding for providers who provide services to residents whose care is funded by the Council.  This was made clear on the application form.

An online form was prepared to gather applications and this form was sent to providers on 20th May 2022 inviting them to apply with a deadline of 10th June 2022.

Applications were received from 165 providers, totalling £3.1m.

It was agreed that SCC would allocate funding to providers as set out in Annex 1.

This means that:

·         Providers who do not provide services to any residents whose care is funded by the Council will be excluded from funding allocations.

·         Providers will receive 75% of their claims for the cost of staff sickness in April 2022.

·         Providers will receive 100% of their claims for retrospective hardship payments to pass onto staff who have suffered loss of earnings due to sickness/self-isolation.

·         Providers will receive 75% of their claims for the cost of supporting safe visiting in April 2022.

·         Providers will receive 50% of their claims for other pandemic related cost pressures in April 2022.

·         Claims relating to the cost of supporting safe visiting and other pandemic related cost pressures in the period May – June 2022 could not be included in funding allocations due to lack of funds once the above measures have been paid.

A letter will be sent to all providers notifying them of the outcome of their application and explaining the basis of the funding allocations.  This will include those providers who will not receive any funding as they do not provide care to any SCC funded residents.

To support ASC providers with cost pressures caused by the pandemic in line with DSHC grant guidance.

The Council could have chosen to allocate funding to ASC providers on a different basis, e.g. giving every provider an allocation based on their number of beds / number of employed care workers etc.  This was dismissed as an option as it would not have targeted funding against identified cost pressures submitted by providers, and it would have led to very small allocations to each provider.

As the grant funding is unringfenced, the Council could have chosen to spend the money in a completely different way and not paid it out to support ASC providers.  However, this would have been both contrary to the DHSC recommended grant guidance and would also have not supported the sustainability of the ASC sector in Surrey.  As such this approach was dismissed.

None.